Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analytic Boundaries of Infinite-Spin-Tower Amplitudes from Hidden Zero

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Unitarity and hidden-zero conditions fix the exact analytic boundary of infinite-spin-tower amplitudes.

desk verdict A genuinely useful analytic boundary for IST amplitudes, but the maximality claim over the full curve rests on a numerical last-pole check and an unproven separation condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27300 v1 pith:5ODVVL5G submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th

Long-Qi Shao , Alessandro Vichi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T3081U20
keywords infinite-spin-toweramplitudeshiddenzerossplittingconditionmeromorphicunitarityanalyticbootstrapVenezianoamplitudeVirasoro-Shapiro
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies four-point meromorphic amplitudes that obey the hidden-zero and splitting conditions, which force the amplitude into the form f(s)f(t)/f(s+t). It shows that, together with unitarity, analyticity, crossing symmetry, and polynomial boundedness, the only free parameter is the pole spectrum, and the spectrum itself is constrained: consecutive energy levels must be separated by at least the first mass gap. Under that condition, the largest allowed region for these amplitudes is bounded by an analytic curve corresponding to the sparse spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}. The paper argues this curve is the largest possible primal boundary for meromorphic amplitudes without an accumulation point, so the remaining gap to the positivity bounds must be filled by branch cuts or accumulation points rather than simple poles. A sympathetic reader should care because this makes explicit, in closed form, how far unitary meromorphic amplitudes of this class can go, and clarifies what kind of singularity is needed to reach the edge of the positivity region.

What carries the argument

The cocycle/splitting equation A(a,b+c)A(b,c)=A(a,b)A(a+b,c) has the general meromorphic solution A(s,t)=C f(s)f(t)/f(s+t). Combined with crossing symmetry and polynomial boundedness, the relevant meromorphic amplitudes take the product form -(s+t)/(st) ∏_{N}(μ_N-s-t)/((μ_N-s)(μ_N-t)). The free data is the ordered pole spectrum {μ_N}; the paper's optimality proof compares any competing spectrum to the extremal one using a partial-summation inequality built from the convexity of x^{3/2}, showing that {0,1,...,n,r} maximizes X at fixed Y.

What would settle it

Find a meromorphic solution of the splitting equation with positive partial-wave residues at every pole whose spectrum violates μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 (for example {0,1,r} with r<2). A cleaner test is to numerically maximize X at fixed Y over all spectra satisfying the stated conditions and see if any point lies strictly above the curve (15); the paper's proof says this is impossible without accumulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For meromorphic solutions of the splitting/cocycle equation, unitarity forces the pole spacings to satisfy μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1. Given this separation, the maximum value of X for a fixed Y is achieved by the spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}, r≥n+1, yielding the analytic boundary X = H_n^{(3)} + (Y-H_n^{(2)})^{3/2}/Y for H_n^{(2)} ≤ Y ≤ H_{n+1}^{(2)}. The paper proves this spectrum dominates every other separation-compatible spectrum, so the curve is the largest possible boundary for meromorphic amplitudes with no accumulation point. All other points inside the positivity region must therefore contain non-meromorphic singularities, such as an accumulation point (a branch cut) or a genuine branch cut. Th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that unitarity of an IST amplitude requires the energy-level separation condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1; if a unitary amplitude could have a denser spectrum, the claimed maximal boundary could be shifted outward.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every unitary meromorphic amplitude of this class lies on or below the curve X = H_n^{(3)} + (Y-H_n^{(2)})^{3/2}/Y in the (X,Y) plane.
  • The boundary is realized by the sparse spectrum {0,1,2,...,n,r}, so the first n massive levels are evenly spaced and a single extra pole is pushed out toward infinity.
  • Any amplitude in the gap between this rule-in boundary and the rule-out positivity region must contain a branch cut or an accumulation point, not just simple poles.
  • The product construction carries over to fully s,t,u crossing-symmetric amplitudes, where the pole distribution must be neither too dense nor too sparse, tying IR graviton physics to UV spectrum constraints.
  • Evenly spaced IST amplitudes are unitary in any dimension for n=1,2, and the critical dimension decreases from ~13.16 at n=3 to 10 as n→∞.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the level-separation condition is only necessary but not sufficient, there could exist unitary amplitudes with denser spectra that push the true primal boundary above Eq. (15); testing spectra with μ_2-μ_1<1 would settle this.
  • The analytic boundary suggests that the numerically observed extremal S-matrix spectra, which contain many high-spin states with exponentially small couplings, may be realized by IST-like amplitudes.
  • The gap between the primal bound and positivity bounds could be closed from the rule-out side if positivity bounds can distinguish poles from branch cuts, effectively sharpening the dual bootstrap.
  • For the fully crossing-symmetric case, the dual constraint on spectral density is a candidate signature of the graviton pole being generated by a dense UV tower, a feature that could be probed on the low-energy Wilson coefficients.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies four-point s,t crossing-symmetric meromorphic amplitudes satisfying the hidden-zero/splitting cocycle equation, arguing that they are forced to the infinite-spin-tower (IST) product form (7). With the pole locations as the only free parameters, the authors propose a necessary unitarity condition on the level separation, derive the analytic boundary (15) corresponding to spectra {1,2,...,n,r}, prove unitarity for evenly spaced spectra and for the first n poles of the boundary family, prove unitarity at the final pole for n=1,2 and for r > n(e-1), and report numerical checks in the remaining interval. They conclude that the boundary is the largest possible for meromorphic IST amplitudes and that the gap to the positivity bounds must be due to non-meromorphic singularities. The paper also constructs a fully crossing-symmetric analogue.

Significance. If the main claim is established, this is a valuable analytic rule-in result: it gives an exact boundary inside the positivity region and sharpens the old question of which UV singularities are compatible with unitarity. The cocycle solution, the boundary formula, and the evenly spaced unitarity proof are clean and largely self-contained. The paper also provides explicit closed-form amplitudes, a high-precision numerical check, and an honest discussion of the gap to the SDPB bounds. The main weakness is that the two load-bearing ingredients — the level-separation necessary condition used in the optimality proof and unitarity at the final boundary pole for generic n — are not fully proven, and these are exactly the ingredients on which the 'largest possible boundary' claim rests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (14) and Fig. 2] The necessary condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 for unitarity is stated as a claim and supported by a sign-change argument, but it is not formalized as a theorem. The argument shows that if the separation is smaller, the residue at μ_k has a sign change before t=μ_1, which is incompatible with the positive expansion (13). However, the statement is used as an axiom in Appendix B: the optimality proof of Eq. (15) assumes μ_k ≥ k. If a unitary IST spectrum could violate this separation, denser spectra would not be covered and the boundary could be pushed outward. Please either supply a complete proof of the necessity claim or explicitly state the main theorem as conditional on this separation condition.
  2. [§IV.B, Eq. (36) and the numerical paragraph] Unitarity at the final boundary pole s=r is proven analytically only for n=1,2 and for r>n(e-1)≈1.718n. For the interval n+1<r≤n(e-1), which is precisely the part of each boundary segment that connects consecutive integer spectra, the paper relies on a numerical scan for n=3,...,10, r∈[n+1,1.8n], J≤200, with 100-digit precision. This leaves n≥11 completely unchecked, and even for n≤10 positivity of the first 200 partial-wave coefficients does not prove positivity of the full infinite Legendre expansion. Since the abstract claims to 'construct such unitary amplitudes' on the full boundary, this gap must be closed or the claim must be qualified as numerical in this region.
  3. [§III and Appendix B] The sentence just before Eq. (15) states that all other pole distributions give smaller X for fixed Y, and Appendix B proves this assuming the separation condition μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1 (or μ_k ≥ k). The partial-summation proof itself is sound under that assumption. But the overall conclusion that Eq. (15) is the largest possible primal boundary for meromorphic IST amplitudes has exactly the same status as the unproved necessary condition. In addition, the proof takes the number of states to infinity and assumes the sums converge with no accumulation; this is consistent with meromorphicity but should be stated as an explicit assumption. I recommend that the main theorem be restated with its hypotheses clearly separated from numerical evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§I] In the introduction, 'we analytically construct meromorphics, t crossing-symmetric amplitudes' should likely read 'meromorphic, s,t crossing-symmetric amplitudes'.
  2. [§VI] The conclusion contains a duplicated/garbled sentence: 'Both possibilities imply that amplitudes in the gap contain singularities other than poles. that there are singularities other than poles for the amplitudes in the gap.' Please clean this up.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption 'Energy separation be larger than μ_1 is necessary for unitarity' should be reworded, e.g. 'The energy separation must be larger than μ_1'.
  4. [Eq. (38)] The recurrence in Eq. (38) appears to have a typo: it should be (j+1)Q_{j+1}(x0) = (2j+1)x0 Q_j(x0) - j Q_{j-1}(x0). As written, Q_{j+1} appears on both sides.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic boundary is produced by an optimization over pole spectra under an independent unitarity condition and checked against external positivity bounds.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: hidden-zero/splitting → functional equation (5) → product form Eqs. (6)-(7); a unitarity condition (level separation ≥ mass gap) argued from positivity of residues for t>0 (Sec. III, Fig. 2); an optimization problem over pole distributions under this condition whose solution is Eq. (15) (Appendix B); and analytic positivity checks for most residues (Sec. IV). None of these steps identifies the boundary with an input. Eq. (15) is the solution of a convexity inequality, not a fitted curve; the unitarity checks are performed by partial-wave coefficient positivity, not by imposing Eq. (15). The comparison with the rule-out region is against external SDPB results. The main caveat is that unitarity at the last pole for general n and r∈[n+1,1.8n] is only numerical, as explicitly acknowledged in Sec. IV and the Conclusion; this is a proof gap, not circularity. Appendix B also relies on the unproved but independently motivated spacing condition; if that condition failed, the boundary might move, but that is an assumption rather than a derivation-by-definition. Self-citations (e.g. Vichi's bootstrap methodology papers) are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction is parameter-light but assumption-heavy: no experimental constants are fitted, but maximality rests on two stated assumptions: the level-separation necessary condition and the absence of accumulation points. Unitarity of the last boundary pole is numerically checked, not derived, for general n.

free parameters (2)
  • Pole locations μ_N = μ_1=1; boundary spectrum μ_N=N (1≤N≤n), μ_{n+1}=r=(Y-H_n^(2))^{-1/2}, μ_N=∞ beyond
    The only tunable input in the IST family Eq. (7); different spectra fill the region, and the 'most economical' spectrum saturates the boundary Eq. (15).
  • Last finite pole r = r ∈ [n+1, ∞) continuous
    Parameterizes each segment of the boundary curve; no first-principles value, only constrained by unitarity checks and numerical scans.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hidden-zero and splitting conditions imply the four-point cocycle equation A(a,b+c)A(b,c)=A(a,b)A(a+b,c) and hence A(s,t)=C f(s)f(t)/f(s+t).
    The paper takes the hidden-zero/splitting conditions from [19,20] as input (Section II) and solves the cocycle equation in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption A(s,t) is meromorphic with only simple poles and is polynomially bounded at fixed t; the product form Eq. (7) follows.
    Defines the class of amplitudes under study; polynomial boundedness is used to fix the entire-function ambiguity and to compare with dispersion-relation positivity bounds.
  • domain assumption Unitarity is equivalent to non-negative partial-wave coefficients at each pole (Legendre/Gegenbauer expansions).
    Standard S-matrix assumption used in Section IV and appendices; no subtleties of full multiparticle unitarity are considered.
  • ad hoc to paper For a unitary IST amplitude the level separation must satisfy μ_{k+1}-μ_k ≥ μ_1.
    Argued in Section III from positivity of residues for t>0 and sign changes at shifted zeros (Eq. (14), Fig. 2); not given a full proof, and it is the foundation of the optimality argument in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectrum has no accumulation point; equivalently the amplitude is truly meromorphic on the s-plane.
    Used in Section III and the Conclusion to claim the derived boundary is the largest primal boundary; if accumulation is allowed, Coon-type amplitudes may sit inside the gap.
  • standard math Known positivity facts for Legendre functions: for z>1, (z-1)(2j+1)Q_j(z)>0; products of functions with non-negative Legendre coefficients have non-negative coefficients; Q_j(y)/Q_j(z) increases in j for 1<y<z.
    Used in Section IV.A/B and Appendix D to establish analytic unitarity of evenly spaced and n=1,2 boundary amplitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Boundaries of Infinite-Spin-Tower Amplitudes from Hidden Zero." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ODVVL5G

@misc{pith2026260727300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Boundaries of Infinite-Spin-Tower Amplitudes from Hidden Zero},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ODVVL5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27300}
}
read the original abstract

We study the general form of meromorphic amplitudes that are compatible with unitarity, analyticity, crossing symmetry, polynomial boundedness and the hidden-zero and corresponding splitting conditions. These amplitudes are infinite-spin-tower (IST) amplitudes and are characterized by the distribution of poles. With infinitely many evenly separated poles, the IST amplitudes reduce to Veneziano amplitudes. We construct such unitary amplitudes in a primal way (rule in) and find the bounds analytically. The allowed region we derive is smaller than, but close to, the region allowed by the positivity bounds (rule out). We argue that, in the absence of an accumulation point in the energy levels, the analytic boundary we derive is the largest possible boundary in the primal construction of meromorphic amplitudes. This type of IST amplitude can also be extended to the fully crossing-symmetric case related to the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude. We found from the IST amplitudes that graviton pole imposes unitarity constraints on UV spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The allowed region from positivity bounds [21]. The light grey area is the allowed region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Starting at t = 0 and increase, the sign of residues changes whenever it hits a zero (numerator or denominator). If µk+1 − µk < µ1, when t reaches µk+1 − µk, the residue changes sign and breaks unitarity. On the contrary, if µk+1 − µk ≥ µ1, it does not break unitarity. Above µ1, the Legendre expansion Eq. (13) diverges, so it does not matter what happens for t > µ1. t Numerators µ1 ￾ µk + ￾ 0 µk+1 ￾ µk + ￾ µN ￾ µk ·… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The blue region constructed by IST amplitudes. The red dots denote IST amplitudes with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Location of amplitudes Eq. (44) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Logarithm of partial wave coefficients for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Partial Waves for Multipositivity

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper constructs kinematic charts and partial-wave expansions for four-, five-, and six-point massless planar amplitudes tailored to multipositivity bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    Berman, S

    J. Berman, S. Caron-Huot, A. V. Chandra, H. Elvang, A. Herderschee, L. L. Lin, and R. Morales, Gravitational Effective Theories with Maximal Supersymmetry and a Peculiar Parity, (2026), arXiv:2607.14230 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion, JHEP10, 014, arXiv:hep-th/0602178

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Rattazzi, V

    R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, and A. Vichi, Bounding scalar operator dimensions in 4D CFT, JHEP12, 031, arXiv:0807.0004 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    El-Showk, M

    S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solv- ing the 3D Ising Model with the Conformal Bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D86, 025022 (2012), arXiv:1203.6064 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, The Conformal Bootstrap: Theory, Numerical Tech- niques, and Applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015002 (2019), arXiv:1805.04405 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Precision Islands in the Ising andO(N) Models, JHEP08, 036, arXiv:1603.04436 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Simmons-Duffin, A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    D. Simmons-Duffin, A Semidefinite Program Solver for the Conformal Bootstrap, JHEP06, 174, arXiv:1502.02033 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, JHEP05, 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Y. Guo, Z. Li, G. Yang, and G. Zhu, Bootstrapping SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills theory, JHEP 12, 033, arXiv:2502.14421 [hep-th]. 27

  2. [9]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Calisto, N. Ussembayev, W. W. Zhao, and Z. Zhou, Surface water wave scattering and the hydrotope, (2026), arXiv:2606.28280 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Veneziano, Construction of a crossing - symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories, Nuovo Cim

    G. Veneziano, Construction of a crossing - symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories, Nuovo Cim. A57, 190 (1968)

    1968

  4. [11]

    Baker and D

    M. Baker and D. D. Coon, Dual resonance theory with nonlinear trajectories, Phys. Rev. D 2, 2349 (1970)

    1970

  5. [12]

    Caron-Huot, Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Z. Komargodski, A. Sever, and A. Zhiboedov, Strings from Massive Higher Spins: The Asymptotic Uniqueness of the Veneziano Amplitude, JHEP10, 026, arXiv:1607.04253 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Veneziano variations: how unique are string amplitudes?, JHEP01, 122, arXiv:2210.12163 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Geiser and L

    N. Geiser and L. W. Lindwasser, Generalized Veneziano and Virasoro amplitudes, JHEP04, 031, arXiv:2210.14920 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Bespoke dual resonance, Phys. Rev. D108, 086009 (2023), arXiv:2308.03833 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, and H.-C. Weng, Bootstrapping string theory EFT, JHEP05, 289, arXiv:2310.10710 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, Uniqueness criteria for the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude, Phys. Rev. D111, 086034 (2025), arXiv:2408.03362 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Cheung, C. Figueiredo, and G. N. Remmen, Multiparticle Factorization and the Rigidity of String Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091601 (2024), arXiv:2312.07652 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Hidden zeros for particle/string amplitudes and the unity of colored scalars, pions and gluons, JHEP10, 231, arXiv:2312.16282 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, Q

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Q. Cao, J. Dong, C. Figueiredo, and S. He, Nonlinear Sigma model ampli- tudes to all loop orders are contained in the Tr(Φ3) theory, Phys. Rev. D110, 065018 (2024), arXiv:2401.05483 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, and C. Figueiredo, Splitting regions and shrinking islands from higher point constraints, JHEP10, 226, arXiv:2506.22538 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Wan and S.-Y

    S.-L. Wan and S.-Y. Zhou, Analytic Bootstrap of the Veneziano Amplitude, (2026), 28 arXiv:2605.11084 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed, C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Figueiredo, and F. Vaz˜ ao, Cosmohedra, JHEP11, 029, arXiv:2412.19881 [hep-th]

  17. [24]

    Bartsch, T

    C. Bartsch, T. V. Brown, K. Kampf, U. Oktem, S. Paranjape, and J. Trnka, Hidden amplitude zeros from the double-copy map, Phys. Rev. D111, 045019 (2025), arXiv:2403.10594 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Hillman, and G. N. Remmen, Bootstrap Principle for the Spectrum and Scat- tering of Strings, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251601 (2024), arXiv:2406.02665 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Y. Li, D. Roest, and T. ter Veldhuis, Hidden zeros in exceptional field theories from double copy, JHEP04, 121, arXiv:2403.12939 [hep-th]

  20. [27]

    Rodina, Hidden Zeros Are Equivalent to Enhanced Ultraviolet Scaling, and Lead to Unique Amplitudes in Tr(ϕ3) Theory, Phys

    L. Rodina, Hidden Zeros Are Equivalent to Enhanced Ultraviolet Scaling, and Lead to Unique Amplitudes in Tr(ϕ3) Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 031601 (2025), arXiv:2406.04234 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    B. Feng, L. Zhang, and K. Zhou, Hidden zeros and 2-split via BCFW recursion relation, JHEP 08, 205, arXiv:2504.14215 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    S. De, S. Paranjape, A. Pokraka, M. Spradlin, and A. Volovich, Hidden zeros of the cosmo- logical wavefunction, JHEP07, 174, arXiv:2503.23579 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    Carrillo Gonz´ alez and F

    M. Carrillo Gonz´ alez and F. Ward, Hidden zeros in massive field theories, Phys. Rev. D113, 125018 (2026), arXiv:2601.16860 [hep-th]

    2026

  24. [31]

    Caron-Huot and V

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, Extremal Effective Field Theories, JHEP05, 280, arXiv:2011.02957 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Huang and G

    Y.-t. Huang and G. N. Remmen, UV-complete gravity amplitudes and the triple product, Phys. Rev. D106, L021902 (2022), arXiv:2203.00696 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos, and A. Zhiboedov, Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude, J. Phys. A54, 344002 (2021), arXiv:2103.12728 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev.140, B516 (1965)

    1965

  28. [36]

    Bousso, A Covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP07, 004, arXiv:hep-th/9905177

    R. Bousso, A Covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP07, 004, arXiv:hep-th/9905177

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. S. Koshelev, A. Mazumdar, and S. Y. Vernov, Stable bounce and inflation in non-local higher derivative cosmology, JCAP08, 024, arXiv:1206.6374 [astro-ph.CO]. 29

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Maldacena and G

    J. Maldacena and G. N. Remmen, Accumulation-point amplitudes in string theory, JHEP08, 152, arXiv:2207.06426 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wang, Triple product amplitude from chiral string, JHEP12, 112, arXiv:2409.11732 [hep-th]

    Y.-P. Wang, Triple product amplitude from chiral string, JHEP12, 112, arXiv:2409.11732 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Calisto and C

    F. Calisto and C. Cheung, An Ultraviolet Finite Theory of Scalars, (2026), arXiv:2606.26450 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Albert, J

    J. Albert, J. Henriksson, L. Rastelli, and A. Vichi, Bootstrapping mesons at large N: Regge trajectory from spin-two maximization, JHEP09, 172, arXiv:2312.15013 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Berman, H

    J. Berman, H. Elvang, N. Geiser, and L. L. Lin, Bootstrapping extremal scalar amplitudes with and without supersymmetry, JHEP05, 149, arXiv:2412.13368 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Albert, W

    J. Albert, W. Knop, and L. Rastelli, Where is tree-level string theory?, JHEP02, 157, arXiv:2406.12959 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Eberhardt, Y.-t. Huang, and S. Mizera, On unitarity of tree-level string amplitudes, JHEP02, 197, arXiv:2201.11575 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mansfield, Positivity of the Veneziano amplitude in ten dimensions, JHEP07, 179, arXiv:2502.20372 [hep-th]

    G. Mansfield, Positivity of the Veneziano amplitude in ten dimensions, JHEP07, 179, arXiv:2502.20372 [hep-th]

  38. [46]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, What is the graviton pole made of?, (2024), arXiv:2410.21499 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, The stringy S-matrix bootstrap: maximal spin and superpoly- nomial softness, JHEP10, 075, arXiv:2311.13631 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, Regge bootstrap: From linear to nonlinear trajec- tories, Phys. Rev. D111, 126005 (2025), arXiv:2401.08736 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, and P. Tourkine, On the number of Regge trajectories for dual am- plitudes, JHEP02, 103, arXiv:2405.21057 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Eckner, F

    C. Eckner, F. Figueroa, S. Metayer, and P. Tourkine, Regge trajectories for UV completions of graviton scattering from polynomial boundedness, (2025), arXiv:2512.17828 [hep-th]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, (Non)-projective bounds on gravitational EFT, (2022), arXiv:2201.07177 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Xu, A Dispersive Bootstrap for the Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude, (2026), arXiv:2606.19283 [hep-th]

    Y. Xu, A Dispersive Bootstrap for the Virasoro-Shapiro Amplitude, (2026), arXiv:2606.19283 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, Causality, unitarity, and the 30 weak gravity conjecture, JHEP03, 083, arXiv:2109.13937 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sinha and A

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, Crossing Symmetric Dispersion Relations in Quantum Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181601 (2021), arXiv:2012.04877 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Caron-Huot, D

    S. Caron-Huot, D. Mazac, L. Rastelli, and D. Simmons-Duffin, Sharp boundaries for the swampland, JHEP07, 110, arXiv:2102.08951 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    H¨ aring and A

    K. H¨ aring and A. Zhiboedov, Gravitational Regge bounds, SciPost Phys.16, 034 (2024), arXiv:2202.08280 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Berman and N

    J. Berman and N. Geiser, Analytic bootstrap bounds on masses and spins in gravitational and non-gravitational scalar theories, JHEP06, 168, arXiv:2412.17902 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chang and J

    C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez, Graviton loops and negativity, JHEP08, 175, arXiv:2501.17949 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tokareva and Y

    A. Tokareva and Y. Xu, Scalar weak gravity bound from full unitarity, Phys. Rev. D112, 085020 (2025), arXiv:2502.10375 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Berman, G. Isabella, F. Riva, M. Romano, and F. Sciotti, Positivity with Long-Range Interactions, (2025), arXiv:2512.13780 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. Peng, L. Rodina, A. Tokareva, and Y. Xu, Sampling the Graviton Pole and Deprojecting the Swampland, (2026), arXiv:2604.15235 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. F. Paulos, J. Penedones, J. Toledo, B. C. van Rees, and P. Vieira, The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes, JHEP12, 040, arXiv:1708.06765 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Correia, A

    M. Correia, A. Sever, and A. Zhiboedov, An analytical toolkit for the S-matrix bootstrap, JHEP03, 013, arXiv:2006.08221 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions, JHEP06, 088, arXiv:2011.02802 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and D. Karateev, Nonperturbative bounds on scattering of massive scalar particles in d≥2, JHEP12, 092, arXiv:2207.12448 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Unitary Dual-Resonance S-matrices, (2026), arXiv:2607.24922 [hep-th]. 31

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.